Share this

Jean Clelland-Morin (guest)
retired Medical Technologist , TX:

Hi Kevin. Being from the wrong side, you still sound reasonable when you speak. So, I'm out to convert. / I would be pro-choice even if I hadn't been an unwed mother pre-DNA. The planet is teeming with unwanted, abused, hungry and uneducated children. It's a travesty to waste effort and resources on legislating a woman's body. / The Texas constitution prohibits me from holding public office because I don't believe in a "Supreme Being". / I was momentarily shocked when my French husband came to the U.S. with me and learned that if he had any known connection with the Communist party he could not enter. So much for freedom of expression. / / I grew up in a Mormon (I graduated from BYU) , better-dead- than-red, racist, sexist family. My own parents voted against the ERA when I was a single mom. The only reason they weren't rabid homophobes is because we didn't realize how many gays were in the closet. // So, that holier-than-thou faction of the Republican party is what I reject. The American Dream has become to get rich on Wall Street while contributing as little as possible to the system - Greed is NOT Good. Trickle-down is the antithesis of a strong work ethic. / Socialism is about people/communities. Capitalism is about money/things. / Just heard, on CNN, that church goers are more likely to support torture. I already understand the mentality - us and them. You can torture "them". You can discriminate against "the other". As long as you are on top. // Jean Clelland-Morin

Carl Diehl (guest)
attorney, businessman , CA:

Why on earth would you feature Grover Norquist's utterly predictable and unhelpful right wing bilge in your headline. He represents a miniscule part of the American political landscape, and one that has been utterly repudiated. By all means include him somewhere, but why lead with this outdated nonsense? It actually would make far more sense to strip your panel of both right and left wing propagandists. A computer could generate their responses with 100% accuracy.

John Bateman (guest)
Law Student , VA:

Grover Norquist - "Obama will nominate a judge who will legislate from the bench. An activist who acknowledges no real limits on the power of the State."
Apparently Mr. Norquist has not paid any attention to American jurisprudence since... the birth of our nation. The judiciary is meant to interpret the laws of the nation. Ever since Marbury v. Madison (1803) the Supreme Court has applied judicial review, which is reviewing actions taken by federal and state executives and legislatures. The Supreme Court almost always deals with hard questions where the legislature and/or Constitution are vague. The Court has to "legislate" or be "activist" in order to settle the problems that come before it. It is incredibly impractical to require the legislatures to create laws for every possible eventuality. It is better to deal with problems as they arise, and allow the courts to interpret how the law is to be applied. "Legislating from the bench" has been a practice of the court for more than 200 years. Get over it.
In regards to the last sentence, every judge on the Court today acknowledges real limits on the power of the state, as will any judge who is appointed. In fact, many "liberal" justices have long fought to limit the power of state governments and applied the 14th Amendment's protection of liberty to individuals on the states. Conservative justices have been much more resistant to protect individual rights of citizens being oppressed by state laws due to 10th Amendment concerns.
It would be nice if the next time Mr. Norquist wants to use a popular label in political jargon, that he pick one that is at least someone accurate in its accusations.

R.T. Elkin (guest)
Teacher and Scholar , NY:

As medicine becomes more and more advanced, and the global climate becomes more and more severe, the most important thing for the President to consider in nominating a new justice (or justices, for that matter), is an appointment that will preserve the ability of the USA to remain at the forefront of world relevance while simultaneously increasing its ability to care for its citizens and do everything it can to slow climate change on both the national and world stages. The US Supreme Court must again emerge as a global influence on jurisprudence.
That said, the appointment must be female. There is no excuse for a court composed of nine members in a land where all are equal of accomplishment should contain only one person to represent half of its populace.

Christopher Craig (guest)
Writer :

He will pick someone thoughtful, smart, and not overly ideological - someone pragmatic. Like himself. The idea put forward by the likes of Grover Norquist that Obama wants to put leftist, activist, legislate-from-the bench judges on the Supreme Court is unfounded. What has Obama done thus far to stoke this kind of paranoia? All he's done so far is make good on campaign promises (a good thing to keep a promise) AND respond vigorously to the all the systemic leaks in the sinking economy, thereby averting cataclysmic economic collapse. As soon as the economy is stabilized, he will begin the process of cutting back on spending and borrowing, which as we all know is at the root of the current crisis, and which we all know is the fault of Bush 43 and his Republican Congress.

Lee Olyer (guest)
Engineer , CO:

Damn moderation! Full speed ahead! Don't be surprised if President Obama and the Democrats try to shoehorn some uber-liberal into the slot. His first choice will likely get shot down "Harriet style", but he'll score some style points with the lunatic-Left for making the effort. In the end, this appointment will replace one reliably liberal justice with another reliably liberal justice - basically resulting in a "push" for the court as a whole. One thing President Obama has shown is he's going for broke right out of the gate. Obama knows that failures must eventually mount and fervor will subside. A major catastrophe on US soil (Swine Flu, terrorist attack, ?..) could wreck the whole liberal social agenda at any given moment, thus the sense of urgency at the White House. If he's to get anything significantly liberal accomplished - it will have to be sooner rather than later. Once the first midterms hit - the scales will begin to balance for the duration of his presidency. Right now, "Surf's UP!" for the President and the Democrats and they aren't going to waste it. Republicans have to weather the storm and remember - every tide turns.

Donald Johnson (guest)
Blogger, businessword.com , CO:

If GOP senators are smarter than I think they are, they will use the debate over the appointment of Souter's successor to make a statement about their party that shows that they no longer are the captives of the social issues radicals who have made the GOP a regional and religious party. Simply put, minimize the ranting and raving over Roe vs. Wade. Focus on the talent and paper trail of the nominee. Insist that the nominee match Roberts and Alito in intellect, skills and integrity. Grandstanding will cost points outside of the South, which is where the GOP needs to win some senate seats. It won't cost a sitting GOP senator a seat if none of them make spectacles of themselves.

Jeremy Feldman (guest)
Advertising , NY:

In response to Joshua Tucker's comment, if I remember correctly, Sen. Specter voted against the Bork nomination and was roundly criticized by the Republican right. At the time of the Thomas hearings, he was coming up for reelection and needed to shore up his Republican credentials. Consequently, he made a calculated decision to play a large role in the hearings. Since then, he has gone on the record as being disappointed with Thomas's record on the court.
This whole discussion around whether if and when Franken is seated and the Democrats have 60 Senate votes Sen. Specter will vote the party line to avoid filibusters is overplayed. My guess is that in most instances Sen. Specter will vote for cloture even if he ends up voting against whatever measure is being considered once it comes to the floor.

Phil Gonzalez (guest)
retired , TX:

Well, if go by what President Obama said during his campaign. We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges," he told a Planned Parenthood conference in 2007. Someone who has the ability or the experience to understand the plight of real people who are in the courts. I guess President Obama forget to mention law and the Constitution, but we can't have everything can we. Seeing how there's talk about picking a woman, it can only be Oprah Winfrey. If not Oprah, then there's no one left but Jerry Springer. If this sounds ridiculous, it can no more be as ridiculous then putting Al Franken in the Senate, thanks to another three judge panel who approved of a set of standards that could be used only once for Franken.

Rich Sawin (guest)
unemployed , NC:

As we strive towards a country where people are judged based on the content of their character instead of the color of their skin, it's disappointing to see so many Arena contributors citing race or gender when considering who they would like to see as a SCOTUS nominee .

Jonathan Wolfman (guest)
Writer/Editor; Retired Teacher , MD:

President Obama, who may make up to four Supreme Court appointments in his first term, is a man of deep horizons. He understands instinctively that the decisions he takes must be effective in the long as well as in the short term. The judicial appointments he makes need, therefore, to be seen not only as they affect current balances of power on the Court and in the Congress, but also as to where the state of the law will likely be in key areas and where those political power relationships may be in future. Because it's so difficult to see ahead, given the vagaries of the electorate and the health and desires of other Justices, Mr. Obama has an obligation to, and likely will, appoint Justices (and judges to the other federal courts) who understand that the Constitution is an activist document. That is its nature. Just one example-- prior to the late 1860s there were comparatively few rights-related lawsuits because the Bill of Rights was seen as applying to the federal government only; under the Fourteenth Amendment the Bill of Rights were extended to the various states and the number of rights-ralated lawsuits jumped. That may have been the single most important civil rights development in our history. It came about not only because of the politics of the Reconstruction Era but because the nature of the Constitution is such that it has within it the impetus and mechanisms to meet new challenges. Mr. Obama's challenge will be to appoint men and women who embrace this sense of our history and of our Constitution.

Heath Mercer (guest)
Author , GA:

I think the pick is most likely to be a moderate woman that Obama knows on a personal level. I think the pick will probably come from the Chicago University establishment, or someone from Obama's Harvard roots. One thing I would bet against is someone from the Appeals circuits. I think Obama, with his background in constitutional law, is far more likely to pick an intellectual rather than a sitting judge.

Edward Stroligo (guest)
Writer , NY:

Obama will nominate a Ginsburg archetype, liberal, but not obtrusively so; we'll have the required political calisthenics, and then she'll be confirmed with sixty-something votes.
The far more newsworthy portent of things to come was the defeat of cramdown in the Senate, a vote rather lightly covered by most media outlets, including this one. I guess a good way to not have to explain why only 45 Democratic senators voted for the bill, and a dozen joined the much-touted terminal Republicans to defeat the measure is to not mention the vote total. :) This vote is important because it demonstrates that there are limits to how far left moderate Democrats can be pushed, a matter likely to have a big effect on the upcoming health care and cap-and-trade debates. As I've said before, Spector or no Spector, Franken or no Franken, only Democrats can defeat Obama. That's the political story for the rest of the year, not the Republicans.

Tyler Tuszynski (guest)
Law Student , FL:

President Obama has already hinted that he wants a jurist by mentioning that he feels appointees should have strong Judicial records.
This gets the politicians and academics out of the way - Holder, Clinton x 2, Sunstein, Koh, Tribe, Sullivan, Chemerinsky, etc.
I agree with many court watchers that his first appointment will be a female. I firmly believe it will either be Sotomayer from the 2nd or Wood from the 7th. Both have strong judicial records, are not necessarily controversial (at least not as controversial as ANYONE from the 9th, like McKeon or Wardlaw)

Daniel Kerlinsky (guest)
Physician , NM:

A Kagan nomination would give President Obama a safe place for the Cheney/Addington redefinition of the Executive Branch to be discussed in confirmation hearings. Kagan's personality is likely to be transformative to the court with her friendly style and Obamesque ability to find consilience. Her administrative law abilities will be needed as environmental law, cap-and-trade implementation nightmares, and revisiting the status of the Federal Reserve System inevitably come into view. She is a well-known individual to the President and Larry Summers. A growing segment of the intellectual community is beginning to voice the need to repudiate the Cheney/Addington patterns of abuse of power. Rather than a Truth Commission or appointment of a Special Prosecutor a Supreme Court nomination process could air most of what needs to be said.

The vote for the nominee would be more powerful than a commitment to not torture again, not wiretap again, not fund the Contras against Congressional law again, etc. Kagan's ability to loosen up the stodgy, superior, ambitious and crusty Harvard Law School faculty and raise money from Alumni means she might galvanize the Supreme Court and thus bring about a change in the culture of Washington - without waiting a decade. Finally the terrible mess of having a privately-owned Federal Reserve System beyond the reach of the Federal government successfully extorting a trillion dollars of taxpayer money after creating a hundred trillion dollar fictional derivative market requires some Constitutional reconsideration. The cap-and-trade scheme was originally an industry proposal to delay cleaning up polluting factories by allegedly reducing greenhouse gas emission elsewhere or purchasing pollution credits from other holders. If a semi-autonomous trading market is set up nationally and eventually internationally it may resemble the Federal Reserve System in serving the needs of the wealthy rather than protecting the citzenry and ecosystem. A cool Kagan head on executive branch administration of new institutions could be helpful for the judiciary in carving a Constitutional approach into ecological issues and multinational corporate interests unanticipated by our founding fathers.

Tony Lee (guest)
writer :

1. Re: Souter (supreme court justice -- my pick -- Rawlinson)
My pick: Judge Johnnie Rawlinson.
President Obama can nominate Sonia Sotomayor, whom the smart money has placed its bets on, anytime, as it would be hard for the GOP to oppose her (Hispanic, centrist, George H.W. Bush, D’Amato, Daniel Patrick Moynihan connections). It makes political sense to save Sotomayor for later to replace Ginsberg or Stevens, if they do retire.
On the other hand, more liberal judges that are being tossed around, such as Cass Sunstein and Elena Kagan, would most likely cost him too much political capital that he could better use for his more ambitious goals (health care, budget, energy).
I would thus place my money on Judge Johnnie Rawlinson of the ninth circuit. She is a woman who embodies the two strongest elements of Obama’s political coalition: Southern Blacks (she is a North Carolina native) and highly educated “San Francisco-type” liberals (she sits on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals—located in San Francisco).
Riding high in the opinion polls and soon to have the magical 60 votes in the Senate, President Obama may find it hard to not nominate the first African-American woman Supreme Court Justice.

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.